DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant filed a response dated 3/4/2026 in which claims 1 and 16-18 have been amended and claim 10 has been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-9 and 11-18 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of outputting medical service support information without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim that describes the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 16-18.
Claim 1 is directed to a device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 describes a medical service support device comprising: a processor; a storage device that is connected to the processor; a communication interface that is connected to the processor; and a memory that is connected to or built into the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire management target information transmitted by a management device via the communication interface; derive a quantity of endoscopes (a medical accessory devices in claim 16) required for performing the plurality of endoscope procedure services during the specific period based on, in a case where N is a natural number, standard procedure service time, from when a first endoscope procedures service, which is an N-th endoscope procedure service performed by an information processing apparatus used together with the endoscopes, is started to when the first endoscope procedure service is ended, standard standby time, from when the first endoscope procedure service is ended to when a second endoscope procedure service, which is an (N+1)-th endoscope procedure service performed by the information processing apparatus, is started, and standard washing time, from when the first endoscope procedure service is ended to when washing of the endoscope is ended; acquire a used quantity of the endoscopes with a record of being used within a default period with reference to a database stored in the storage device by accessing to the database; obtain quantity related information indicating a different degree between the required quantity of endoscopes and the used quantity of endoscopes; generate medical service support information based on the quantity of endoscopes required for performing the plurality of endoscope procedure services during the specific period, wherein the medical service support information includes the quantity related information indicating the different degree between the required quantity of endoscopes and the used quantity of endoscopes; and transmit the medical service support information to the management device via the communication interface in response to a request of the medical service support information from the management device. The limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) recite an abstract idea of outputting medical service support information which correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity. The claim 1 recites additional elements of a processor, a storage device, a communication interface, a memory, a database, a management device, endoscopes, and an information processing apparatus which do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, a storage device, a communication interface, a memory, a database, a management device, endoscopes, and an information processing apparatus result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea. The additional elements of a processor, a storage device, a communication interface, a memory, a database, a management device, endoscopes, and an information processing apparatus are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic technical arrangement. The presence of a generic technical arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a storage device, a communication interface, a memory, a database, a management device, endoscopes, and an information processing apparatus are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer element. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claims 16-18 which are similar to claim 1 and hence the claims 16-18 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-9 and 11-18 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-18 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, Prong 1, the processor configured to access the database stored in the storage device to obtain a specific information should not be considered to recite any method of organizing human activity. Thus, the amended claim 1 is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim limitations are considered in the absence of additional elements under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, it was determined that the claim recites an abstract idea and the additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are then further considered in more specific detail under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant states that the claimed invention solves this technical problem of device unavailability not be generic business rules, but by driving the quantity calculation based on the specific physical constraints of the device’s lifecycle. By including washing machine constraints into the quantity determination process, the claimed invention improves the operational reliability of the endoscope management system and reduces the likelihood of device shortages during procedures.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the improvement is to an abstract idea of managing endoscope availability and not to technology. The improvement to an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant states that the amended claim 1 adds significantly more and specifies an inventive concept, rather than a conventional practice.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim does not present an inventive concept as the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to simply applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement and the improvement is only to an abstract idea which is not sufficient to add significantly more. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights